Burrard Inlet Rapid Transit - Park Royal-Metrotown via 2nd Narrows | BRT/RRT?

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I highly doubt the province wants to realign the Fern interchange again. At best, the TCH shifts east right up against the substation in exchange for developable condo space beside Lynnwood and an overpass to the east half of the reserve (and that's assuming the Squamish want to negotiate in the first place).

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my earlier post. The S-bend I was referring to is the one that causes the limited visibility at the north end of the bridge where it crosses Main Street. The reserve land in question is underneath that part of the bridge between Columbia and Railway; it is split by the viaduct and would be easier to redevelop if the new bridge is further east:

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my earlier post. The S-bend I was referring to is the one that causes the limited visibility at the north end of the bridge where it crosses Main Street. The reserve land in question is underneath that part of the bridge between Columbia and Railway; it is split by the viaduct and would be easier to redevelop if the new bridge is further east:

I knew you were sourcing Google Maps, please see my previous post, Google is a liar!

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Don't believe everything you see online, I'm assuming you're sourcing Google Maps which is a lazy liar when it comes reserves in Canada.

You can look up the real borders of the reserve here.....

Originally Posted by chowhou

I knew you were sourcing Google Maps, please see my previous post, Google is a liar!

Again, yes and no; the boundaries on Maps are inaccurate compared to the official description (thanks for that link btw) but the bridge still splits that land and it would be much easier to develop if the bridge were not there. I would imagine that it would be of interest for the Squamish to swap, say, the land at the tip of the railway peninsula for the land under the current bridge.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Again, yes and no; the boundaries on Maps are inaccurate compared to the official description (thanks for that link btw) but the bridge still splits that land and it would be much easier to develop if the bridge were not there. I would imagine that it would be of interest for the Squamish to swap, say, the land at the tip of the railway peninsula for the land under the current bridge.

That might be the case, but IIRC the early plans for the Phibbs exchange expansion ran into issues because they were proposing pushing the eastbound Main Street off ramp slightly northwest but because it would hit reserve land it was completely dropped. I'm not sure how politically viable it is right now to try to negotiate removing land from reserves (even if it's a swap.)

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

That might be the case, but IIRC the early plans for the Phibbs exchange expansion ran into issues because they were proposing pushing the eastbound Main Street off ramp slightly northwest but because it would hit reserve land it was completely dropped. I'm not sure how politically viable it is right now to try to negotiate removing land from reserves (even if it's a swap.)

Yes, it's certainly not an easy process and any such change would have to give a significant benefit to the First Nations. We won't be seeing any expropriations as compared to that woman's house at the north end of the project.

[Migrant_Coconut]

IMO the railways do a much better job of making the reserve unbuildable than the bridge does. And even if it were one big parcel, you've still got Main and all the highway traffic cutting it off from Phibbs and Lynn Creek.

Nah, I'd suggest instead giving them almost everything on the east parcel (i.e. Superstore and parking, plus the empty lot with the Hydro towers), developing that, and connecting it to Lynn/Phibbs via pedestrian bridge.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

IMO the railways do a much better job of making the reserve unbuildable than the bridge does. And even if it were one big parcel, you've still got Main and all the highway traffic cutting it off from Phibbs and Lynn Creek.

Nah, I'd suggest instead giving them almost everything on the east parcel (i.e. Superstore and parking, plus the empty lot with the Hydro towers), developing that, and connecting it to Lynn/Phibbs via pedestrian bridge.

No reason they can't do both, plus curving the bridge does make it safer at the north end. The lack of visibility as you're coming down the slope is dangerous if there's a slowdown north of the bridge.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Yes, it's certainly not an easy process and any such change would have to give a significant benefit to the First Nations. We won't be seeing any expropriations as compared to that woman's house at the north end of the project.

Just a bit of musing here, sorry if it's a derailment (pun not originally intended but it is now.)

There's definitely a world where the federal government proposes a land swap for all the lands south of Main-Dollarton in exchange for accepting the Statlew district reserve addition (formerly known as the Maplewood Innovation District which was curbstomped by the past council slightly enraging the TWN.)

https://www.dnv.org/building-develop...dition-reserve

https://www.statlewdistrict.ca

Were that to happen, it would make far more sense to align the new Second Narrows bridge with the Fern-Main stretch of Highway 1 to the west of the current bridge. This would allow for a Skytrain station at Phibbs to then turn and join the highway bridge for a shared Second Narrows crossing.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

No reason they can't do both, plus curving the bridge does make it safer at the north end...

It also intrudes on the Seymour River's west bank. The province likely wants to avoid 5-10 years' worth of environmental reviews.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Just a bit of musing here, sorry if it's a derailment (pun not originally intended but it is now.)

There's definitely a world where the federal government proposes a land swap for all the lands south of Main-Dollarton in exchange for accepting the Statlew district reserve addition (formerly known as the Maplewood Innovation District which was curbstomped by the past council slightly enraging the TWN.)

https://www.dnv.org/building-develop...dition-reserve

https://www.statlewdistrict.ca

Were that to happen, it would make far more sense to align the new Second Narrows bridge with the Fern-Main stretch of Highway 1 to the west of the current bridge. This would allow for a Skytrain station at Phibbs to then turn and join the highway bridge for a shared Second Narrows crossing.

How would that swap be received, though, given that it would take away land from the Squamish while giving different land to the TWN?

As for the western route, is it possible for a bridge to rise over or around the grain elevators at Cascadia Terminal? I can't see the Port wanting to give up an existing facility, and the other issue is that we would ideally want to avoid introducing even more twists and bends into the highway route.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

How would that swap be received, though, given that it would take away land from the Squamish while giving different land to the TWN?

As for the western route, is it possible for a bridge to rise over or around the grain elevators at Cascadia Terminal? I can't see the Port wanting to give up an existing facility, and the other issue is that we would ideally want to avoid introducing even more twists and bends into the highway route.

Foot in mouth moment right there, you're totally right. For some reason I thought Seymour Creek IR 2 was TWN land (The Squamish are really hogging all the good land huh? )

The west route would have fewer turns, the south bridgehead would be the same but shifted westward while the north bridgehead would have no turn until the Fern underpass. The new Pattullo bridge is being built 25m away from the rail bridge, so conceivably the new Second Narrows bridge could be built 25m away from the current Iron Workers. There's currently a 75m gap between the Iron Workers' and Cascadia. Should be enough room for a squeeze by?

[Jimbo604]

Boring company tunnel

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

It is called the Second "Narrows" for a reason...

It used to be narrow but they've done so much dredging that if you built over at Willingdon you would probably see a similar length span (maybe an additional 200-300m?)

The top is Vancouver.



https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/...orth-vancouver

[Migrant_Coconut]

When we're talking about a bridge, I'm guessing even 100m would hike the cost up. Crossing Burrard Inlet is likely the single most expensive part of the line, so I wouldn't blame the province if they opt to "just" parallel the IWMB.

[waves]

How about avoid making big changes to existing ROW's and you build a new rail bridge immediately east of the old one, decommission the old one, then use that space to then build a new Ironworkers two-deck Hwy-Skytrain bridge?

• Doesn't need big ROW changes or aquisitions.
• Both curves on the north and south side of the bridge on HWY can be smoothed and their radius increased for safety and allowing higher speeds.
• Easy alignment for skytrain to connect to Boundary for a cut & cover and to Phibbs.
• No new ROW needed for skytrain
• Pedestrian and Cyclist pathway on the lower deck (west side) along with Skytrain (east side) can easily connect to Phibbs and a station on the North Side.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/ed...Ag&usp=sharing

[djmk]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

When we're talking about a bridge, I'm guessing even 100m would hike the cost up. Crossing Burrard Inlet is likely the single most expensive part of the line, so I wouldn't blame the province if they opt to "just" parallel the IWMB.

I would think they have to parallel. On the north end, phibbs is right beside the bridge. And on the south side, there is a steep elevation drop going west. Ships still need access to the refinery

[chowhou]

Burnaby council will be proposing a North Shore BRT alignment in Monday's meeting.

Preferred BRT Corridor
Technical reviews conducted by TransLink of the BRT corridors indicated the Metrotown
- Park Royal corridor will generate the best regional outcome in terms of daily boardings
and second in the region for access to employment. A daily boarding of 55,000 was
forecasted in 2035 for the Metrotown - Park Royal corridor.
For the “Quick and Easy Implementation” assessment, the Metrotown - Park Royal
corridor scored moderately as only 20% of the corridor can accommodate dedicated
BRT operations without the loss of travel lanes and on-street parking. This constraint is
particularly acute for the Hastings Street segment between Boundary Road and
Willingdon Street. For the “Ease of Operational Implementation” assessment where
incremental fleet size and layover capacity were considered, the Metrotown - Park
Royal corridor scored moderately in comparison with the rest of the BRT corridors in the
region.
On the bases of the preliminary evaluation outcomes and on the strength of the
ridership and economic benefits, the Metrotown - Park Royal is considered to be
Burnaby’s leading BRT candidate with further design refinement to overcome road
space constraints and to expedite implementation.
Modified Alignment
To achieve a “Quick and Easy” implementation, the Metrotown - Park Royal corridor will
need the dedication of general traffic lanes and/or curbside parking to accommodate a
smooth on-street BRT operation. For the Burnaby segment of the corridor, an
alignment modification will ameliorate the traffic lane constraints by re-routing the BRT
onto Boundary Road south of Hasting Street and connecting to Brentwood Town Centre
via First Avenue and Halifax Street as illustrated in Attachment 1. The modified
alignment will form the basis for further BRT planning and design, as well as for future
corridor study alternatives for rail-based rapid transit connection to the North Shore.

See pages 216-220 for details.



Looks like the Gilmore Station alignments are looking a bit more likely these days!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Only because Burnaby's too chickenshit to touch the Hastings parking lanes.

For the “Quick and Easy Implementation” assessment, the Metrotown - Park Royal corridor scored moderately as only 20% of the corridor can accommodate dedicated BRT operations without the loss of travel lanes and on-street parking...

... For the Burnaby segment of the corridor, an alignment modification will ameliorate the traffic lane constraints by re-routing the BRT onto Boundary Road south of Hasting Street and connecting to Brentwood Town Centre via First Avenue and Halifax Street as illustrated in Attachment 1.

Might end up on Gilmore, but probably not because of the BRT alignment.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Only because Burnaby's too chickenshit to touch the Hastings parking lanes.

Might end up on Gilmore, but probably not because of the BRT alignment.

I wonder if Translink will accept that routing..

[officedweller]

Isn't the First Ave. hill east of Boundary pretty steep for a bus?